Why was the structure of the niobium silicate AM-11 so difficult to solve?

The synthesis of the polycrystalline niobium silicate catalyst AM-11 was first reported in 1998 [1], but its structure proved to be elusive. In 2007 we received two samples from the Aveiro group. At the time, we were looking for a material suitable for the application of the texture method of structure solution, and AM-11 seemed to be ideal for this purpose. One of the samples had needle and the other platelet morphology, and textured samples could be prepared in both cases. The conventional powder diffraction pattern could be indexed on a hexagonal, an orthorhombic or a monoclinic unit cell, so this was the first issue to be resolved. The texture measurements quickly revealed that the crystal system was orthorhombic, but the structure resisted solution. We then tried applying the precession electron diffraction technique in combination with high-resolution powder diffraction data, but beyond confirming the orthorhombic symmetry, these data did not help us to solve the structure. Another attempt was made with a new sample and an improved texture setup, but to no avail. Rotation electron diffraction data and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy images showed that some disorder was present and helped to define the space group, but the structure remained a mystery. The powder charge-flipping routine in Superflip [2], yielded tantalizingly clear electron density maps, but they could not be interpreted sensibly. The unit cell parameters were seen to be related to those of the titanium silicate zorite [3] (one axis doubled in AM-11), so the problem was taken up once again last year. By starting with a simplified zorite framework structure with Nb in place of Ti, and performing what amounts to manual Fourier recycling, the surprisingly simple structure (1Nb, 3 Si, 9 O), which is significantly different from zorite, finally revealed itself. There is some stacking disorder, but the structure is otherwise innocuous. What made it so difficult to solve?

When two bad data sets are better than one

High-resolution synchrotron X-ray powder diffraction (SXPD) data alone are sometimes not enough to solve the structure of a complex polycrystalline material. Such was the case for the high-silica zeolites SSZ-61 and SSZ-87, where combining data from different sources, in particular XPD and electron microscopy, was vital to success. For SSZ-61, the SXPD data feature broad peaks and a resolution of ca. 1.2 Å. Although the pattern could be indexed, structure determination failed both with the charge flipping routine in SUPERFLIP [1] and with the zeolite-specific program FOCUS [2]. The unit cell parameters and HRTEM images indicated a relationship with ZSM-12 (MTW) and SSZ-59 (SFN), so several models derived from these two frameworks were built. Eventually, after considering Si-29 MAS NMR data and the size of the organic structure directing agent (SDA), a framework model that fits all the data emerged. To complete the structure, the SDA was included as a rigid-body, and its location and orientation optimized using simulated annealing. Subsequent Rietveld refinement confirmed the structure. In contrast to SSZ-61, the SXPD pattern for SSZ-87 was quite good, and it could be indexed with a C-centered cell. However, structure solution failed, probably because of the very high degree of reflection overlap (93%). Therefore, rotation electron diffraction (RED) data [3] were collected, but they proved to be of low resolution and poor quality. Only 2 of the 7 data sets could be indexed, and these had different unit cells. Neither fit the XPD pattern directly. The problem was traced to large errors in the RED cell parameters, and eventually one RED cell could be transformed to one similar to the SXPD cell. The RED data with this cell was only 15% complete up to a resolution of 1.22 Å. Even so, the structure could be solved using a recently developed version of FOCUS that works with ED data. The SDA was found as for SSZ-61, and the structure then confirmed by Rietveld refinement.

Why powder diffractionists need help from electron crystallography

Although X-ray powder diffraction (XPD) is used as a routine tool for solving crystal structures of polycrystalline materials, its weakness is obvious: not only is the phase information lost during the diffraction experiment, but reflections with similar d-spacings, which are well-separated in a single-crystal measurement, overlap in a powder pattern. These effects increase the difficulty of structure solution especially when dealing with complex structures. Compared to XPD, the advantages from electron microscopy are: (1) single-crystal electron diffraction data, either in 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional form, can be obtained from a very tiny crystallite in a powder sample; and (2) high-resolution images can be collected and used to extract phase information in reciprocal space or to provide a direct view of structural features (ordered and disordered) [1]. With the extra information supplied by electron microscopy, the limits of structure determination for polycrystalline materials can be extended [2]. Here we will present a few examples to demonstrate why powder diffractionists need help from electron microscopy and how to integrate these two techniques into the structure determination process.